October 18, 2018, 05:39:57 AM

Author Topic: Turn sequence in BFG  (Read 3289 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hengest

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Turn sequence in BFG
« on: March 22, 2013, 11:08:20 AM »
BFG remains one of my all time favorites and to be honest I am quite happy to just play with the standard rules plus most of the 2010FAQ, but I don't mind tinkering every now and then.

Earlier this week I played a 28mm WW2 game using Bolt Action rules and I wondered how the turn sequence we used in that game would work with BFG.

Stating the obvious in BFG one side moves all their units and then the next side moves all theirs. Fair enough but its a simple IgoYou process.

In the bolt action game the order in which each unit moves during a turn sequence is randomly selected by drawings counters (orders dice for bolt action) from a bag.

There is a counter for every unit: one colour of counter for one side another colour for the other (s).

At the start of the turn a counter is pulled randomly from the bag. If it is one of your coloured counters then you can select any one of your units and then carry out your action - if the counter is your opponents colour he selects, moves and shoots one of his units. The counter is then placed beside the unit to show it has moved and completed its action. You then withdraw another counter and whoever's colour it is can move the next ship. Carry on until all counters are out of the bag and every unit has moved.

This way the sequence the ships move in is random depending on the colour of the counter that is withdrawn. You have to think a lot more tactically about which ship/squadron you will move next and might better simulate simultaneous movement. I was thinking initially you can't hold fire either - although on second thoughts having an option to hold fire might also work.

For ordance I was thinking that you can have an ordnance phase at the beginning of each turn and then again at the end. This will reflect the double move that ordnance get since they can move in both players turns. Again the number of counters you put in the bag in the bag equal the number of ordnance squadrons on the board as before.

Once all the counters have been used for both the ships and then for the ordance that's the end of turn - so roll to remove blast markers , fix damage etc etc as usual.

For eldar I was thinking you have double the number of counters. The eldar turn isn't over until all the ships have moved twice (they can only fire once though). That means they can employ both MMS and MSM - might be rather powerful that - but its just a concept.

I haven't tried out yet - but the idea intrigues me

Any thoughts? Anyone tried something like this before?

Offline Falconius

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • Loc: Pretoria
Re: Turn sequence in BFG
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2013, 07:28:11 PM »
We did something similar a few years ago: the first phase in the game was changed to a secret order phase where each ship or squadron had an order chit placed upside down beside it. These orders would be straight, port or starboard and optionally a special order. Players would then take turns executing orders. It is a reasonably multi-player friendly system. I recall we had reasonable fun with this system. We also did ordinance at the begin and end of turn like you.
To put it bluntly: BFG is a brilliant game as is and yet it is tolerant of such tinkering.
So please continue with such tinkering and thanks for sharing.

Offline AndrewChristlieb

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Turn sequence in BFG
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2013, 10:18:54 PM »
This seems like a good way to go for multiplayer games. Have you tried it out with more than 2? 
I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down.

Offline Falconius

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • Loc: Pretoria
Re: Turn sequence in BFG
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2013, 02:51:13 AM »
Yes, but not by very much. I'm in the silly position of owning 6 fleets but I only have one regular opponent: my wife. My other previous opponent lives too far away and he gave me his IN fleet as a present about a year ago. I've reached the sad point where I'm thinking of immigrating to a country where I can enjoy my odd hobby.
Not that there aren't many other reasons to make a move. Imagine living in a country where the least of the crimes committed by the (soon to be twice elected) president includes rape and tax evasion (caught twice). And good old Zuma has at least 32 children (that we know about). Now imagine having more than half your income taken in various forms of tax by a government lead by such a dude.
Sorry for going off on a tangent like that, I know all countries have their problems. From what I've seen online Australia seems to have a good crowd of wargamers..

Offline Thinking Stone

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 132
    • Loc: The Great South Land of the Holy Spirit
Re: Turn sequence in BFG
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2013, 02:36:41 AM »
Well, we know that Australia has at least one wargamer… :). At least our politicians aren't (usually) so dodgy (excepting a particular NSW family and a famous Qld premier…) :(.

I've been thinking the alternating activation method is the best one that would work as well as the original BFG rules to represent ponderous fleet movements and to allow ships to actually shoot at each other. With The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game (LotR:SBG :) ) system you end up with the same problems as MSM Eldar where long-range ships just move to stay out of range of our heroes in the Imperial Navy with short-ranged guns.

I do like the sound of the Bolt-Action system, but I wonder if the Epic:Armageddon system might be a less random alternative? Basically, players alternate between choosing ships, a player can try to retain the choice to do two in a row by passing a test. I would modify it to say a player can choose to miss an activation if they have less ships than their opponent(s), maybe can't miss two in a row? This helps deal with situations where one fleet has many more ships than another, something which has bothered me with asymmetric battles.

Anyway, food for thought:
Thinking Stone

« Last Edit: August 17, 2013, 03:11:44 AM by Thinking Stone »

Offline timdp

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 281
    • Loc: Northern California, USA
Re: Turn sequence in BFG
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2014, 09:28:07 PM »
A local group uses a leadership based system for movement and firing. Movement of units is in leadership order starting with the lowest leadership. Firing of units is also by leadership order but reversed, so starting with the highest leadership. Leadership ties are randomized.

This system provides higher leadership units with actual tactical advantages.

Tim

Offline Gun_wun

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 229
    • Loc: USA
Re: Turn sequence in BFG
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2014, 03:24:57 AM »
We’ve been using at “Da Squig Bunker” a initiative type roll on a D6 + leadership.  Highest number goes first.  You have the option to defer Movement if you’d like if you win the initiative.  The D6 initiative roll is done at the start of each turn.  It’s simple and really changes the dynamics of the game.  If you’re playing a race with bunk leadership and are using just leadership value then in my experience you are playing catch up the entire game.  The D6 roll gives a Git a chance even if it’s at a handicap due to poor leadership.  Every now and den Da Squig gets a bone!   It’s worked well fer us, just me 2 cents………………..

Offline Thinking Stone

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 132
    • Loc: The Great South Land of the Holy Spirit
Turn sequence in BFG
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2016, 09:19:49 AM »
After finally coming across a rather complete set of the Epic:40K rules (the third edition of Epic, which shares a lot with BFG in terms of rules mechanics), I was quite taken with how they treat titans in the turn sequence.

Each player's army has a strategy rating. The player with the higher strategy rating gets 3 tokens and the lower rating 2. The tokens go into a cup or some such device allowing blind choice. The first phase of the game is players alternating declaring flyer missions (starting with the lower strategy rating): player A declares first mission, player B second mission, player A third mission etc..

The second phase of the game is movement: the player whose token is taken out of the cup may choose to move all their units before or after the opponent (and we note that because there are only 4 tokens left, one player's chances of choosing to go first in the next phase are increased).

The third phase is non-titan shooting. The player whose token is chosen may choose to fire with one of their formations, then the other player chooses one and shooting continues to alternate between the two until all normal things have fired. A player may always choose to skip firing until later, if they wish.

The fourth phase is titan (and other war engine) shooting and the initiative is determined again! The player with the initiative again chooses a titan to shoot with, and titan shooting alternates between players.

The fifth phase is the assault phase, and the initiative is determined again, with players alternating to move and assault with formations. After this phase is the end phase and then the turn starts again.

If I was to do this for BFG, I would probably have an Ordnance phase at the start (ordnance actions alternating like flyer missions) and another one at the end of the turn (once again alternating).

The second phase I might have capital ships (or maybe just battleships?) move first with initiative chosen by counter, with a second movement phase for escorts (with initiative again chosen by counter). I think alternating between players for each ship or squadron would work well here too.

The fourth phase (after ordnance 1 and 2 movement phases) would be determine initiative by counter and alternate firing escorts, followed by a second phase of initiate and capital ship firepower. Maybe the escorts and capital ships would be swapped, or maybe all ships and squadrons would be in the same phase?

After shooting is done, I would have a second Ordnance phase before the end phase. I'm not sure when ordnance would be launched, maybe in the first phase or maybe in the shooting phase?

Of course, either Tim's or Gun_wun's suggestions for determining the order of shooting could be used instead of the counter (though I like how the counters give some more predictability without making it certain). Gun_wun makes a good point about low leadership being a big penalty, but Tim makes a good point about leadership giving a very tangible advantage! Though maybe with alternating activation Tim's suggestion wouldn't be quite so harsh?

Some food for thought, anyways!

Though I must say, I don't mind the current system too much... it always makes the ships seem appropriately ponderous! Though I would be in favour of trying my suggested modified Epic:40K system as a replacement because separating the escorts from the capitals keeps some of the ponderous feeling (whilst alternating activations perhaps help with multiplayer games and boredom between turns).

Thinking Stone